Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Ketchin, with Councillor Bennett attending as his substitute. It was confirmed Councillor Bennett had undertaken the required training and understood the responsibilities of the role.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Hughes.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 1 December 2025 and 8 December 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2025 was taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2025 was taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

A Member thanked officers for their work and engagement for the appeal 24/0714 for Greencroft, Streatham Rise.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Councillor Moore to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

·        the site being of significant historic importance and of ongoing public interest;

·        she enquired on the expected timescale for delivery of the redevelopment, given that the developer had referred to the timelines from the previous committee stage;

·        having a reputable developer with heritage experience was welcomed, but emphasised the need for clarity on public expectations; and

·        a timescale was needed on record and sought confirmation on when works were likely to commence and complete.

No Member questions were raised for Councillor Moore.

The Chair confirmed there were no public speakers registered to speak on the item.

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for the redevelopment of the Royal Clarence, to include 25 new residential dwellings on the upper floors with part residential on the ground and part basement floor and commercial on the remaining ground and basement floor as a public house and restaurant.

Members received a presentation which included:

·        the application was for ground floor commercial units for a public house and restaurant, and 25 residential apartments above, creating a five and six storey mixed development use;

·        the applicants had submitted an updated phasing plan (Condition 4), which was found to be acceptable and would limit heritage harm;

·        the phasing schedule outlined when works were expected to commence and complete on the site;

·        a previous consent was granted for a similar scheme with ground floor commercial use and flats above, with a similar external appearance;

·        the current proposal included revised internal layouts, including a repositioned stair core, altered internal walls, larger lightwells and updated heritage considerations;

·        the site was a Grade II listed building, surrounded by multiple high-value heritage assets and was located within a central conservation and archaeologically sensitive area;

·        the buildings current condition was poor, having suffered fire damage, structural deterioration and water ingress;

·        the proposed apartments met national space standards and offered acceptable resident amenities and the development would be car free; and

·        the development would use obscured glazing, screening and noise controls to ensure there were no significant amenity impacts to neighbours.

The Principal Heritage Officer advised:

·        he had visited the site repeatedly over the past six years, and his most recent visit he noted the extent of degradation and that the building was unsafe;

·        specialists now understood how and why the structure was moving, and how it could be remedied;

·        Heritage officers and historic specialists had worked closely with the developer in recent weeks to accelerate solutions and the proposed scheme was considered acceptable;

·        the developers could deliver a suitable resolution and urged Members to grant permission so work could begin as soon as possible; and

·        he would be closely involved throughout construction, providing advice and monitoring to ensure the heritage fabric was properly protected.

The Principal Project Manager – Development Management advised:

·        the Heritage impacts were of significant consideration, and officers and specialists had undertaken extensive discussions throughout the project;

·         the upper floors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Councillor Moore to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

·        the site being a flagship, council-owned site, and her comments reflected those of herself and Councillor Read, and the work undertaken with local residents;

·        the proposal referred to a gate in an existing alleyway between 20 and 21 North Street;

·        the alleyway provided a historic, publicly owned access used by residents and a gate would create a dead-end, increasing community safety risks rather than reducing them;

·        a gate would also restrict evening and winter access, contradicting claims of community involvement. The access routes were important for public access to the rear of the properties, and for bin collection and needed to be retained;

·        a gate would also conflict with the NPPF and Local Plan, which required connectivity and respect for existing urban structure;

·        the Frank Knight report failed to reference the Exeter Local Housing Needs Analysis 2024 and the demand for co-living was not evidenced, with growth in single-person households was predicted to be low;

·        the financial contribution toward housing supply was noted but units were not suitable as long-term homes and there was a lack of futureproofing if demand dropped;

·        the area already had a high concentration of co-living and student accommodation, which conflicted with policy and the need for a mixed community;

·        the development was a very high density, with a proposed sixth floor and rooftop equipment, which made the height five metres higher than the existing car park and created a visual dominance over Mary Arches Street and Bartholomew Cemetery;

·        there was a conflict with emerging Local Plan D1, which required appropriate density and compatibility with its surroundings and this was not sufficiently sympathetic to nearby heritage buildings;

·        the development would damage the medium and short range views around the city centre;

·        the views from Mount Dinham and St. David’s Hill into the conservation area would be lost;

·        longer distance views would result in a solid block, which was contrary to council development plans;

·        there was an issue with disabled parking allocations which was not clear;

·        the synagogue had requested dedicated disabled parking for deliveries and access with one space was allocated, so disabled parking for residents would be insufficient;

·        disabled parking needed to be provided proportionally to the housing units; and

·        greater horseshoe bats were present in St. Bartholomew Cemetery but were not referenced in the report and appropriate mitigation for light impacts and bat flight paths was needed.

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Moore made the following further points:

·        the alleyway access routes were not public rights of way, but were public footpaths;

·        there were two alleyways off North Street which served properties on both sides and provided access to buildings at the rear and connected through to Mary Arches Street;

·        the proposed locking of gates at night would prevent winter access and make the routes unusable during evenings;

·        gates would also be placed at the end of the alleyways, creating dead ends and increasing safety issues;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.